Ravi Zacharias has a good reflection on the state of meaning and coherence in contemporary culture.  Here is the first paragraph of his brief commentary which is entitled The Story that Centers: 

There is a vacuum at the heart of our culture. Saul Bellow argued in his 1976 Noble Laureate lecture: "The intelligent public is waiting to hear from art what it does not hear from theology, philosophy, and social theory and what it cannot hear from pure science: a broader, fuller, more coherent, more comprehensive account of what we human beings are, who we are, and what this life is for. If writers do not come into the center, it will not be because the center is pre-empted; it is not." Very simply stated, there is no center to hold things together. Or to put it differently, there is no over-arching story to life by which all the particulars can be interpreted. The pursuit of knowledge without knowing who we are or why we exist, combined with a war on our imaginations by our entertainment industry, leaves us at the mercy of power with no morality. May I illustrate this?

If you would like him to illustrate this...continue reading here. 

The worship ministry here at Fellowship Nashville and several artists from the church have put together a Christmas Album entitled Ring the Bells - A Christmas Offering.  The unique thing about the album is that ALL proceeds are going directly to our church's mission partnerships in Africa.  You can see a video about the project here (wmv format).

The CD features the following tracks:

The CDs make great Christmas gifts and are just $15.00. They can be purchased directly here. Do some good along with your gift giving this year.

BusinessWeek has a couple of interesting articles on renewable energy sources.  The first is about China's investment in wind and other technologies which are growing at a massive rate. The second is about processes to create biodiesel from certain types of algae...the title is pretty pithy as well - Here comes pond scum power.

In the same vein I saw a new wind turbine design that looks pretty interesting if it actually works.  It is called the Maglev wind turbine - see graphic below and click here for a description  of a company who is actually working on this.

There will be a day where we will not be a world dependent on petroleum resources for energy.  Some people will also get rich in the process of developing and deploying new technologies...economic opportunity and environmentally friendly sources of energy sound like a good marriage to me. 

As one who is moving to NJ next year, this one sounds cool, but perhaps a bit far fetched. 

This coming January I will have the wonderful privilege of studying with a very unique scholar with a unique name.  January 14-18 I will be in Louisville, KY to take a class simply entitled "Origins" taught by Dr. Kurt Wise.  This is a class I have looked forward to for several reasons.  '

First, I did my undergraduate studies in Applied Science and Physics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  I became a follower of Jesus during my sophomore year at UNC in the middle of my studies in the hard sciences.  The questions surrounding the Scriptures view of history, science and the nature of the cosmos became important for me at this juncture as well as my interests in Christian Apologetics. During my studies at UNC I immersed myself in some young earth creationist literature for a brief season but over time evolved to more of an old earth, recent Adam creationist yet firmly maintaining that the first 11 chapters of Genesis were a trusted, though not comprehensive, view of human creation, sin and early migrations.  I would say I have stayed somewhat abreast on the discussions between theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, intelligent design theorists and literary framework views.  The interesting thing about my upcoming class is that Dr. Wise is in fact a young earth creationist...and one of considerable intellectual talent.

Dr. Wise did his undergraduate studies in geology at the University of Chicago, a masters in geology at Harvard along with a Ph.D. in Invertebrate Paleontology, also at Harvard University.  His doctoral work was actually supervised by the late Stephen J. Gould, quite the proponent of various evolutionary explanations of life.  Wise has even drawn the attention and disdain of the high priest of the new atheism Richard Dawkins who said the following of Dr. Wise:

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity.

And then of course the following: 

Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that [that he is a six day, young earth creationist who believes the Bible), even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink. It reminds me of Winston Smith in struggling to believe that two plus two equals five if Big Brother said so. But that was fiction and, anyway, Winston was tortured into submission. Kurt Wise—and presumably others like him who are less candid—has suffered no such physical coercion. But, as I hinted at the end of my previous column, I do wonder whether childhood indoctrination could wreak a sufficiently powerful brainwashing effect to account for this bizarre phenomenon.

So I have the upcoming privilege of spending 8 hours a day for five days with this highly credentialed scientist and young earth creationist.  My biggest question is whether Dr. Wise will consider me Mr. Foolish if I do not accept the 6 day creationist conclusion...and will I care.  I look forward to the reading and discussion ahead and will enjoy engaging all of these issues in the coming weeks as I do the reading...and he did just assign some reading.  He did go to Harvard after all. 

For those interested here are the books on the list for my class in Origins:

• Miller, Keith B., editor, 2003, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 528 p.
• Ross, Hugh, 2006, Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO, 291 p.
• Wise, Kurt P., 2002, Faith, Form, and Time, B&H, Nashville, TN, 287 p.

For the original wide screen version - see here Classic line - "Wow, Purple Haze"

I am by no means what someone might call a prolific blogger.  I have a day job, a wife and three kids, am in Seminary, working on planting a church...and I enjoy writing when time affords.  Yet I just noticed something fun on my Movable Type Control Panel today...[for those who want to know - POCBlog is powered by Sixapart's Movable Type Software - Word Pressers I know you guys are cool]

I don't share too much the metrics of this site (for instance, how many page views a month we see) but I thought this was a bit different.  After being at this for a bit, the POCBlog is at 995 entries and 957 comments which means two fun milestones are just ahead.  First, the 1000 entry mark and second, the point at which comments eclipse the number of posts.  It has been fun to see a community form here with common interests and friends old and new.  I even love all those Mac people who always comment when I praise or mock the Apple cult. 

Anyway, what began as a way to put my thoughts down has turned into something I really enjoy.  I like thinking with you, hearing from you and keeping in touch with friends all over the world.  Thanks for walking these paths over the past few years and we look forward to the continued exchange of thoughts, laughs and Zune information in the days ahead.

Yesterday we sang a song in church that provoked quite a bit of wrestling in me.  I don't remember the exact song - but it had a line that went something like this:

All this world offers I give up to follow you...

I wrestled with this question all afternoon and it is still on my mind a bit.  What does it mean for us to "give up all the world offers" yet have everything the world offers.  I look at my life and those around me and there is nothing that the "the world" craves that we do not have.  Well, that is probably an overstatement in that I don't have a jet plane or a Larry Ellison yacht...nor do I want one.  But the parking lot of our church is full of luxury cars and luxury SUVs.  The neighborhoods of our area are as nice as you can ask for.  The average income in this county, and likely in our church, is close to 100K a year.

What does it mean for us as American people to reject the world for Jesus when we have the world?  I have wrestled with a few options - all of these I am asking of myself:

• We can have position, possessions and power as long as they don't have us?  Question: Is this just a love thing?  I don't really love these things, I just have them.  Yet it seems we configure life and work in order to have these privileges for ourselves and our kids.  You know, you have to have what is best for the kids.  If I don't love them and don't need them...why have them? 
  
• We could be monks and follow St. Francis into poverty?  Question: I don't think the life of a monk/hermit is for all people.  Some perhaps, but not all.  The reformation was clear in making all work sacred, not just the work of priests or those in cloisters. 
  
• You can live in a culture yet not choose its excesses - you intentionally live lower than it.  You live a lifestyle that is less that you "could" live.  You choose the Toyota over the Lexus, the Honda over the Acura, and a 2000 sq foot home rather than a 4000 sq foot pad. Generosity seems to be God's call upon the wealthy - but if we are generous to churches that simply use that wealth to take care of their own, could this become an act of community wide selfishness as well? A reminder to church leaders to wrestle with budget priorities no doubt.
  

This is a real question for me in America - some are surrounded by wealth and the "good life" - others are feverishly chasing it.  All this shook me pretty hard yesterday as we listened to the book of Philippians.  A letter written from a guy in jail, to a church giving to others out of its own poverty (not giving out of its abundance).  We even paused to reflect on a man named Epaphroditus who nearly died (and this means dead, death, temporal life lost) for the sake of the gospel.  We followed this with a ballet dance to the song "Take my life, all of me" - I loved the beauty of the art portrayed and the offering of our talents to God...but it seemed to be a disconnect for me as we were just talking about a guy giving up his life in the mission of the gospel.  I think it somehow this call upon us is more than a dance in church.

Are we too comfortable?  Am I being a jerk?  I know a lot of this is just my own issue and wondering how my family should live in the midst of this world as we follow Jesus. 

I see no mandated command to poverty in Scripture.  I also abominate the health/wealth prosperity doctrine.  I see great warnings about loving the world, loving money, and the deceitfulness of riches.  Yet I see the virtues of gospel living and industry as being helpful in the gaining of wealth.  Historically, the frugality and industry of Protestantism has brought a high amount of prosperity to cultures.  I personally know some very gracious, generous and wealthy people whom I consider dear friends.   So some are going to get paid, yet, how do you keep it from getting you?

I know the word prophet may bug a few of you, but I do think some men just see things clearly before their time. I find such a person in the writings of AW Tozer. I read this quote from him this morning and found it very revealing:

Modern civilization is so complex as to make the devotional life all but impossible. It wears us out by multiplying distractions and beats us down by destroying our solitude, where otherwise we might drink and renew our strength before going out to face the world again.

A.W. Tozer, Of God and Men

And now we have e-mail, IM, blogs (smile), RSS feeds and smart-phones which watch them all 24/7.  It is no wonder we are so thirsty in the parched contemporary desserts of western culture. Reminded again of the importance of solitude, reflection (thinking deeply), reading and prayer.

(HT - Sandy Young) 

It is a bit difficult to keep up with the POCBlog these days.  I would mention how many days I have had off in the last 2 months but then the Sabbatarians would tell me what a sinner I am. Believe me, I am very aware already.  Life has moved along at quite a clip with being a husband and father, speaking, leading inversion, raising funds for Jacob's Well, travel to NJ, seminary...and blogging.  Well, at least once in a while I find a moment to write.

I just returned from a week in New Jersey which ended with a delightful day long delay in Newark airport and a midnight arrival on Sunday evening.  From there I had to get up and read about 100 pages and then report to my church history class for a quiz and the 411 about our upcoming final exam.  Jersey was good.  I spoke twice at Rutgers, went to the RU/Pitt football game and met with some pastors and campus ministry leaders in the area.  I feel like I am learning more and more about the community God has called us to...it really going to be a walk in the park - an easy cushy church job.  Just kidding...there have been a couple of days when I have asked Jesus if he still liked me after calling us to Jersey. 

To be honest, where we live today is just a great place.  Lots of families, lots of friendly people (a few shallow church folk as well), lots of housing, low taxes and cost of living, some good churches, good schools etc.  Let's just say that Jersey is about as different from Nashville as Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks.  A few thoughts on Jersey culture are here.  One of my prayers is to actually become a Jersey guy - I guess about 10 years from now I will feel abrasive to southern folk...wait, I already feel abrasive to some southern folk.  Perhaps I have a little Jersey in me already.  We'll see.

Anyway, I am back home and enjoying the final days of a church history class, meeting with some friends about partnering with Jacob's Well and deeply thirsty to have some down time for Scripture and reflection.  Our schedule is intentionally going to slow down here in the coming months to focus on relocating and the church plant...but more importantly for time to drink deeply with the Lord in preparation for our coming labors in the northeast. 

I have greatly enjoyed the slow reading of Alistair McGrath's new book Christianity's Dangerous Idea - The Protestant Revolution from the 16th Century to the 21st. I am going through it as a pure pleasure read - which for me means no highlighter and no sticky flags...though I did dog ear a few pages on the plane Sunday :) Look for a review here some time before the Rapture (if you believe in such things).

Finally, I ran across a few interesting articles today.  First, Bishop Desmond Tutu echoes the current zeitgeist about homosexual practice over on the BBC.  It is quite clear that the demonization of anyone who holds traditional morality is a present reality.  The malaise of the Anglican communion is indicative of a greater disjunction of many churches from their scriptural moorings.  Second, Dan Kimball, a prominent voice in the emerging/emergent conversation writes some excellent thoughts regarding the balance between Kingdom living now and gospel proclamation associated with the after life. A find balance that we have been preaching from day one at Inversion. I don't jibe with everything Kimball, but this is a timely and good word.  If you are not familiar with Kimball - you need to at least check out his stray cats like 1980s rock-a-billy hair.  Nice.

Finally, I had a great reunion with my beloved family this week after being out of town for a good 8 days.  It was great to be home to contemplate the future together.  Kasey and I are wrestling with schooling decisions - mainly between public (great missional opportunities to meet people...no extra money) and Christian (laying a cooperative gospel foundation in the early years) schools.  Please pray for us on that and your opinions are welcomed.  

My most recent talk in our Gospel of Mark series is up online...I have so enjoyed studying this gospel and communicating its words to my friends.  The gospel is the story we live in and I am humbled by God's grace to me - in all my pride and sin - extended my way on the cross of Christ. 

May you all have a great Thanksgiving - a meaningful day for those who have someone to thank.   

Ran across this quote today in a church history class I am taking...this was written just before the reformation.

“If Christianity had remained what its Founder made it, things would have gone differently, and mankind would have been far happier, but there is no plainer proof that this religion is falling to pieces than the fact that the people who live nearest to Rome are the least pious of any.”

—Niccolò Machiavelli

RE:Greek - check it out. 

OK, one last tech post for this Saturday while I sit in the Detroit airport...Google announced last week and Open Handset operating system which is being called Android.  Not sure if I like the name but it is an interesting development. 

Here is a listing of some recent media coverage of the announcement.   

 
The Palm Centro is the new entry level smart phone currently available exclusively from Sprint.  It is available for 99 bucks with a new two year contract and is available in onyx and recently released ruby.  The phone runs the most recent version of the Palm phone and PIM applications and fits nicely in both hand and pocket.  I'll give a quick run down of the things I like and don't like about this little device.

Hardware 

The hardware of the Centro is sturdy but does have the feel of a lower end device.  It is solid but does not feel unbreakable.  It has a plastic case which one expects for this price range.  The screen is small but very vivid at 320x320 resolution.  The device's dimensions are 4.22" (L) x 2.11" (W) x 0.73" (D); 4.2 oz = small.  There is a tiny QWERTY keyboard at the bottom of the device, a directional pad and four application buttons on the front assigned to phone, home, calendar and e-mail applications.  The buttons are fully user assignable so customize how you like.  The left side has volume buttons and a custom application button you can assign to any thing.  I believe a voice recorder is the default.  I set mine to launch the camera.  The right side has the microSD slot where you can put up to an additional 4GB of storage.  Mine has a 2GB card.  To place the memory cards you do have to remove the back cover which conceals the user replaceable battery which is rated at 3.5 hours talk time, up to 300 hours standby time.  The back has a speaker and the 1.3 megapixel digicam and camcorder - it records stills as well as video. The bottom of the device has the syncing port, small headphone jack (does not accept standard audio headphones but will with adapter) and charging jack.  A few quick hardware impressions:

• Small Keyboard - to be honest I am coming from text messaging on a number pad so the keyboard is a delight for me.  I would say I have medium sized hands so the small keyboard is an issue.  The keys however are quite raised and distinguishable so I have not had a problem here.
• Ear piece volume - there have been complaints in the past about the volume level of the Treos - Palm's flagship smartphone.  I will say the volume is plenty loud but I have experienced the volume changing without my doing anything.  It has faded low in the middle of long calls only to return again to the higher level.  May be my phone and I will check on this.

Software 

The biggest complaint these days against Palm is the aging Palm OS.  The OS has not had a major revision in years and is feeling dated against the modern handset systems such as Windows Mobile 6, Symbian and OSX/iPhone.  Yet to be honest, I love the Palm OS even though I know its technical and architectural limitations.  It is fast, simple and all the software I had bought in the past for Palm pretty much runs on my Centro.  I agree with the critics that Palm needs a new OS (and there Linux deal is much delayed as of this writing) but I don't find the Palm system to be a drawback to Centro.

• PIM - The basic Palm PIM apps (Calendar, Contacts, Memos) are easy to use and well integrated.
• Phone - the phone module is new to me but I can see why people love their Treos as it is pretty much the same app
• Messaging - the SMS application supports MMS (not on the iPhone) and is a wonderful threaded chatlike program.  It groups text messages into conversations which is just great.
• Web - the Blazer web browser is fast and does its best for such a small screen.  It supports two modes - fast and stripped down or full which includes style rendering.  The only problem I have faced is using my blog software fully to admin my Movable Type 3.2 install. 
  
• Audio - the included PocketTunes is great for playing audio and the little speaker does a nice job.  I have an iPod so I won't use this much but it is good software.
• E-mail - VersaMail is included and is working great syncing with my corporate e-mail (push through Exchange/ActiveSync) and with a couple of my POP accounts.  Could be better but very functional.
• Office Docs - Documents to Go is included giving access to Word, Excel, PPT and PDF files at all times.  Nice.
  
• Extras - There are some fun extras included like Handmark's OnDemand which has movie times, news, weather etc.  All stuff you could get online but in a nice simple and aggregated interface. The camera/pic/vid software is adequate doing the job nicely and the My Centro app provides quick access to user guide and support.
  
• Palm OS - Because this is the old Palm System there are numerous software titles available.  My very favorite is the excellent MyBible 4 by Laridian and the accompanying commentaries and resources.  I have four Bibles, a commentary and Greek/Hebrew concordance in my pocket again.
  

Service 

• This is the best part of having a smart phone - you can always access the net and e-mail from anywhere at any time.   Unlike the crappy AT&T EDGE service  that iPhone uses get stuck with, Sprint's data network is snappy and responsive.  A few weeks back I was listening to some bands with a friend when there was a tornado warning.  He pulled his iPhone to check whether, me my little Centro.  Granted his screen and browser were much better but I had the weather maps and forecast up while he awaited for the slow network to respond.  Additionally, the Sprint unlimited data plan added only 15.00 a month to my plan which is reasonable for the amount of use I am giving it.

Overall, I am quite pleased for the functionality I have in the Centro for only 99 dollars.  Sure its touchscreen does not flick and fly like the fancy iPhone but I also paid a whole lot less...and I feel good about saying no to Steve Jobs and yes to Palm. Plus, if Palm blows away in the next two years my investment was small and I can be in the market for another reasonably priced device in 2009 - maybe iPhone 3.0...and hopefully not on AT&T. 

For a very in-depth look, see the excellent review over at Engadget.

Over the years I have remained somewhat of a technophile...I got hooked on computers as a college freshman and eventually switched my major from a BS in Physics to a BS in Applied Computer Science at UNC Chapel Hill.  I am such a geek I even wrote a sort of technology biography a couple of years back. 

I have always enjoyed the products of Palm Inc.  Actually, I was printing out my calendar from an old app called Lotus Organizer when the first Palm handheld came out.  At that time it was from US Robotics before it was sold to 3Com, then spawned Handspring, which worked on cellphones called Treo, then Palm Inc, which borged Handspring back into Palm...

I have watched the smartphone market for years with some interest but two things kept me away.  First, the technology was not mature and the features of the early phones were very weak.  Second, they were just so expensive that I felt a little hitch in the soul paying 500 bucks for a phone.  Well, things evolved and the technology got better but the price did not go down as rapidly so I have held out.  

In October a little phone come out from Sprint/Palm called the Centro which peaked by interests.  First, it was 99 bucks.  Second, it was really small.  Due to the fact that I was moving my corporate plan phone onto my personal Sprint plan I was forced to do another 2 year contract...so this small phone was available to me at the 99 price.  I bit the bullet and grabbed on a few weeks back and I have been very pleased.  So what follows is a bit of a review of my little black Centro...

I read these over at the Prosblogian. Perhaps those who are philosophically minded will enjoy.  The Avicenna quote is pretty well known, I had not seen how John Duns Scotus had adapted it.

Those who deny such manifest things need punishment..., for as Avicenna puts it: "Those who deny a first principle should be beaten or exposed to fire until they concede that to burn and not to burn, or to be beaten and not to be beaten, are not identical." And so to, those who deny that some being is contingent should be exposed to torments until they concede that it is possible for them not to be tormented.

Duns Scotus, Reportatio I A prol. q. iii. art. i

"We may observe that opinions which contradict first principles, are distinguished, from other errors, by this:-That they are not only false but absurd; and, to discountenance absurdity, Nature has given us a particular emotion-to wit, that of ridicule-which seems intended for this very purpose of putting out of countenance what is absurd, either in opinion or practice."

Just in case you wonder who the other folks Thomas is named for, please see the following link from the POC Archives: The Anatomy of a Name

A friend showed me this video yesterday and to be honest it just made me sad.  Well, first it make me want to puke, then made me a bit angry, then it brought me sadness.

It is from a church in Georgia, I don't know the preacher and I believe the people there are likely well intentioned and desire for others to understand the message of the Bible.  This sermon was an introduction to a series entitled "Bling" - to talk about our culture's obsession with stuff.  But as I watched I saw a church surrounded by stuff, talking about "the worlds" obsession with stuff.  Additionally, I grew up very much in African American culture and I felt this to be very inauthentic and a bit over the top.  

Just a lesson of where a church, trying to be "cool", becomes very very far from being cool.  In fact, this is inauthentically as uncool as I have seen from the "cool church" crowd.  Plus, this little show looked like it probably cost a little bling to teach people about bling.

Here is the video - pull the slider to the 20min mark and let it go for a minute.  And then, if you are a pastor, promise sweet Jesus you will never do anything like this.  Or maybe I am overreacting...what do you think?

It is an amazing thing which happened in the region of Caesarea Philippi when Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God almost two millennia ago (See Mark 8:27-30 and Matthew 16:13-20).  Caesarea Philippi was a city dedicated to the worship of the emperor at the time of Jesus and in previous generations was a place dedicated to the pagan god Pan and to the idolatrous worship of Baal.¹  It was in this place where Jesus' identity is openly confessed.  In our world today we often speak of pluralism, the idea that there are many gods and many ways to worship.  We think this is a new situation in the world brought on somehow by the diversification of viewpoints in contemporary America.  Yet this reality is nothing new at all for people have been building alters from the dawn of humanity.  People have always created and worshipped gods, yet the radical confession of Peter is that there was one God and that they were walking with him on the earth.

The claim of Monotheism was the teaching of the ancient Jewish people² among nations who believed in many, many deities.  The ancient philosophers were coming to monotheistic conclusions³ as they wrestled with metaphysical questions of ultimate reality and truth.  Yet monotheism has an undeniable edge to it.  If there is one and only one creator God, then all other pretenders to the throne are no gods at all.⁴  Those who stand for religious pluralism today and throughout history see this very clearly as a problem.  Mary Lefkowitz, professor emerita at Wellesley College recently wrote the following in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. 

Prominent secular and atheist commentators have argued lately that religion "poisons" human life and causes endless violence and suffering. But the poison isn't religion; it's monotheism.⁵

Of course she is following the drivel of the so called "new atheists" who place all the problems of the world on religion. The thesis is that monotheism, belief in one God, necessitates killing those who disagree.  This of course is hardly what you find in the life of Jesus.  Yes, some Christians in history have murdered and conquered others in the name of Jesus, but in doing so they acted in contradiction to his very life and teaching.  Yet we must not dodge the reality found in the incarnation, in the biblical teaching that the one creator God, became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  The implications are that this person is the most important figure on the horizons of history and the coming contours of the future.  He is not one teacher among many, nor one way to many gods.  

The teaching of God incarnate in Jesus the Messiah is radical, humbling and life changing for in the gospel we do not see God coming to oppress humanity.  In stark contrast to the totalitarian visions of human utopias, offered by king, caliph, or communist, God came to earth to die for and redeem a people for himself from every nation on the earth.  There will be a kingdom on the earth some day which will be one of righteousness, love and peace.  It will not come by force of man or technological heroism.  It will come with the same Jesus at his return to the earth. 

All people from every ideology, religion, ethnicity and background are welcome at the foot of the cross of Christ.  It is a great heresy to teach that all from every nation are saved, but a beautiful biblical truth that some from every nation will be saved by grace.  In every age, from the time of Jesus until the end of the world, Christians will proclaim the wonderful news of God incarnate in Jesus Christ dying for sinners.  It was and will be an unpopular message to declare Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.  Yet this will be the song of all people at the close of history.  We now have the great joy and privilege of knowing him and sharing him with all.  In following Jesus in this world, living his mission and declaring his message, there will always be those who shout "crucify him!" and we must take up this cross.  Yet there will be those, to whom the Father reveals Jesus, who will look at him as did doubting Thomas and exclaim-my Lord and my God...

Notes 

1. Ben Witherington III, Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 240.
2. See Deuteronomy 6:4,5.
3. The looming historical figures of Plato and Aristotle, though in very different ways, were coming to this conclusion.
4.For a good look at Jesus among world religions see Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods (Nashville, Word, 2000)
5. Mary Lefkowitz, Bring back the Greek gods—Mere mortals had a better life when more than one ruler presided from on high, LA Times, October 23, 2007. 

Mark 8:27-30 and its more robust parallel in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew's gospel has been the source of some historical controversy between Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  It is taken by the latter to be biblical warrant for the institution of the Roman papacy, the Pope as the father of the church and its supreme teacher in regards to faith and morals.  I will quote the Matthew passage here:

¹⁶Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." ¹⁷And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

While this brief essay cannot treat these issues with the rigor which is needed, I do hope it might illuminate the differences between Roman and Protestant/Eastern Orthodox views of the Christian faith.  I will lay out a few points of argument made by each side in regards to the issue of the papacy.

Catholic Arguments for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (The Pope)

There are many arguments that the Roman church makes in favor of the primacy and leadership of the Pope and the hierarchy of cardinal, bishop and priest which is under him.  The argument usually takes two lines-one from the sacred tradition of the church and the other from Holy Scripture.¹   On the tradition front, there is a section in the classic work of the 2^nd century church father Irenaeus to which Roman Christians point to as favoring papacy.  Irenaeus was bishop of Lyon which was located in what is now modern day France.  He wrote extensively confronting several heretical teachings of his day. He is quoted often in various contexts-in this case, in favor of the primacy of Rome.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.²

Additionally, the ecumenical council of Nicea in AD 325 listed four major patriarchates/sees (seats of authority) being Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem with Rome given the place of highest honor.  In the late fourth century Constantinople was inserted making the list of honor-Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, though the rivalry of Rome and Constantinople would continue until the east/west split in AD 1054.  One of the issues was papal authority which the Eastern Orthodox churches still reject until this day.  Finally, the text from Matthew quoted above is used extensively in the argument for the papacy. The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome, the first pope.  His successors maintain the highest authority in the church.  The succession of bishops or overseers of the church in Rome is not the issue, the issue is this man's rule over the church as the supreme representative of Jesus on the earth today.

Arguments Against the Papacy

There are many long standing arguments against the papal authority in church history.  They too interpret both tradition and Scripture to make the argument.  Again, this is necessarily brief and therefore incomplete.  First, it is argued that Peter is but one of a plurality of leaders in the early church.  All traditions attribute great honor and leadership to Peter, but he was by no means infallible.  During the life of Jesus we see Peter's evolution into a great leader through his many failures.  Yet even post resurrection we see the apostle Paul rebuke Peter for his inconsistent and hypocritical actions in relating to Jew and Gentile in a way contrary to the gospel (See Galatians 2:11-14).  Second, the text in Matthew 16 does not imply the papacy and certainly nothing like papal infallibility.  Many interpretations have been offered which give primacy to Peter and his role in the establishment of the church, but none of this need imply the papacy which evolved in the Roman church during the middle ages.  Third, the historical honoring of Rome by councils does not warrant the papacy. Rome is honored as a great historical church in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople, but the other great churches and their patriarchates were not subjected to her-in fact, this was not the case with Constantinople and continued to be an issue for hundreds of years and persists until today.  There also has been a reality in history which stated that councils should decide matters of dispute, not one bishop.  This was the case through the first seven ecumenical councils and was argued by the Conciliar movement in the late middle ages.  Additionally, the apostolic succession of Pope's and their infallibility seems historically dubious.   First, one particular pope, Honorius 1, was declared posthumously to be a heretic and false teacher in AD 681 for advocating something called Monothelitism .  How could he be considered infallible?  Second from AD 1378 to 1417 there were actually two popes in the Western church, one in Rome one in France seated at Avignon.  The Council of Pisa in 1409 disposed both popes and appointed another, but both did not step down leaving the church with three popes for a brief time.  The issues were resolved with the Council of Constance (1414-17) but raised the question of whether a council could rule over the pope for the council had removed the two popes and elected Martin V to power.³  One last historical issue is of note, although the Roman church claims it was always the case, papal infallibility was not made Roman teaching until Vatican I in 1870. 

In conclusion it must also be said that the story of the papal institution has been haunted by grabs for power, accumulation of wealth, immorality and sin.  Though the Catholic church claims that the Pope has not erred and has never taught in contradiction to Scripture I think history is replete with examples of both action and teaching which do not reflect infallibility.  This only means that Popes are people and are in no way infallible.  The highest authority for the church has never been the succession in Rome, but the apostolic teaching of Scripture being faithfully entrusted and passed on through the ages.  We trust not hierarchy or power to maintain the church, but the Spirit and the Word of God.  There are errors on all sides...Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.  Yet our disputes are resolved in humility, standing under, not over the very Word of God in Scripture.  History and our lives are messy, we no doubt move forward with truth and error.  But much as Luther echoed long ago under great pressure to recant his views-Our consciences are chained to the Word of God...here we stand, we can do no other.

Notes 

1. It should be noted that in the Roman religion that Scripture and the teaching Tradition of the church are equal forms of authority which are seen as complementary and never contradictory.   Protestants hold that Scripture is the supreme authority and is the corrective and judge of all human teaching in the church.

2. Irenaues, Against Heresies 3.3.2-http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

3. For a good summary of church history during this era see Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1 (New York: HarperOne, 1984) - See particularly the chapter on the Medieval Papacy.

Today we have another guest essay from Timothy Dees one of the founding members of Jacob's Well who has already relocated his operations to New Jersey.  If his Fact of the Day (FotD) is not on your radar it should be.  Here is the link to his site.

Today's installment touches a subject familiar to the readers of the POCblog - The New Atheism.  Dees essay should be read along with the excellent essay What the New Atheists Don’t See - To regret religion is to regret Western civilization by Theodore Dalrymple in the City Journal.  Dalrymple is not a believer but sees through much of the vitriol of the new atheists to some of the beautiful gems of Western Christian culture.  Highly recommend you reading Dalrymple and then Tim's essay below.  Hat tip to Ben Vastine for pointing out Dalrymple's essay to me last week.  Enjoy.

-----------------------------------------------
The New Atheists
by Timothy Dees 

Today we have a book review / essay on the New Atheists.  It mentions the following books:

• God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens
• Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett
• The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
• The End of Faith, Sam Harris
  

It's a simple enough question: either there is a God or there isn't.  But there are some special properties to that question that make it exceedingly difficult, especially because the game is rigged against the atheists.  I say that as a theist, but I also say that in agreement with prominent atheists such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins.  The existence of God, as a philosophical proposition, is non-falsifiable; in other words, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

Russell, the patron saint of atheism, unpacked this idea when he said:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

What this means is that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, so they are forced to consign themselves either to rebutting arguments for God's existence, or attempting to demonstrate that if God existed, he would be a nasty fellow.  It's not that they don't have their reasons, but as a philosophical statement it is impossible to prove there is no God. 

Fighting a non-falsifiable idea is a Sisyphean task, and throughout history atheists have generally accepted modest expectations for what they can and cannot do.  Thus Bertrand Russell's legendary atheist tract is not entitled Why I Am an Atheist, but Why I Am Not a Christian.  In it, he goes through many of the classical arguments for God's existence and offers a rebuttal of each.  On these grounds he rejects Christianity and the Christian conception of God, but as a philosopher he cannot honestly say that he has proved that God doesn't exist.

Lately, however, a new flavor has emerged in the debate over God's existence.  The New Atheists, as they have been called, are a group of atheists who, in the wake of September 11th, have decided that belief in God isn't just wrong, it's evil.  It's a varied group, consisting of a legendary scientist (Richard Dawkins), a journalist (Christopher Hitchens), a graduate student (Sam Harris), a philosopher (Daniel Dennett), and a number of other people of different stripes.  The one thing they all have in common is that they write books on atheism, and those books sell at a fever clip.

Their tone is different from the atheists of the past: at times their books can be funny, rude, scientific, arrogant, self-assured, condescending, or caustic; I can assure you that they're never boring (with the possible exception of Daniel Dennett).  Sometimes their rhetoric descends into the despicable, as in this passage in Sam Harris's The End of Faith:

"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably.  Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.  This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."

This is a truly striking claim, but generally the New Atheists are more measured than Harris.  What they have in common is a belief that religion has been coddled too long, and a belief that religion only leads to evil.  They believe this second point quite scrupulously, as for instance, neither Christopher Hitchens nor Richard Dawkins mentions one good thing a theist has ever done, acting as though religion prompted the Crusades and the Inquisition, but not Mother Theresa and the Sistine Chapel.  Just as it isn't fair to judge atheism by Stalin, it isn't fair to judge theism by Osama bin Laden.  At its worst, this sort of argumentation turns into a spew of ad hominem attacks.

Not to say that these indictments against believers aren't worth noting.  If there's something inherent in religion that makes people mistreat others then that's obviously a bad thing, but most of the world's billions of religious people don't kill anyone and generally treat others with a certain fundamental decency. 

But all this is neither here nor there.  One can defend and attack believers and non-believers from dawn till dusk, but very little would be accomplished.  The central question is "Does God exist?" and on this question the New Atheists seem to misunderstand the philosophical challenge of the question.

They dispatch God in different ways, but all of them have holes.  In Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett (the most even-handed of the New Atheists) argues that religious faith is an evolutionary adaptation and thus has no correspondence to reality.  But this argument crumbles quickly: sight is also an evolutionary adaptation, and I would imagine that most atheists would believe that what they see represents reality.  Dennett's book takes an interesting thesis and tries to contort it into more than it is.

Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion propounds an innovative argument against God's existence - but it's an argument that ultimately doesn't hold water.  Essentially, Dawkins's argument is: God, if he (or she) exists, would have to be very complex because the things that God created are very complex.  Complex things are less likely, so a very complex God is very unlikely.  Since God is improbable, and (Dawkins argues) since the world could have been created without God through unguided Darwinian evolution, God does not exist.  Like I said, it's innovative, but it has huge holes.  One: there's no reason to suspect that complex equals improbable, and two: there's no reason to suspect that improbability implies non-existence.  Alvin Plantinga's response to Dawkins's argument is worth reprinting:

"You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class."

Christopher Hitchens's argument is more straightforward.  For Hitchens, God is a jerk.  This is more of sticky wicket for believers than Dawkins's "improbability" argument or Dennett's evolutionary argument, but Hitchens brings no new ideas to the table, besides implicating God's followers with God.  Hitchens basically says "God's bad, and if you don't believe me, look at believers."  The problem is that Hitchens can't see any difference between Osama bin Laden and Ned Flanders.  A believer is a believer for Hitchens, and they're all vile people, corrupted by the scourge of religion.  Hitchens seems unable to see shades of grey.

After reading through the assembled corpus of the New Atheists, I was exasperated.  The New Atheists have a few novel ideas, but most of the time they're merely spouting invective about how bad believers are.  Orwell discussed this argumentation style in Homage to Catalonia: "It is as though in the middle of a chess tournament one competitor should begin screaming that the other is guilty of arson or bigamy.  The point that is really at issue remains untouched."  That's the real innovation of the New Atheists: they don't care for the central question of theism vs. atheism; instead they prefer to shout.  It's enough to make even the most committed believer nostalgic for Bertrand Russell.  Yes, give me that old time atheism. 

The most recent update on Jacob's Well is over at the www.JacobsWellNJ.org - you can jump to it directly here. 

Just as an update, as soon as a few checks come in, the 35K match has been reached - a few of you POCBlog readers chipped in.  Thanks so much for praying for us and helping us towards our move north in June.

This past weekend I was in Blacksburg, VA for the second time in the last month.  My prior trip was to engage with a community about the atrocity which took place on the Virginia Tech campus in April.  During that trip we were looking at Jesus' view of suffering and the reality of evil in our hearts and in our world.  This trip was different.

I went to pastor the wedding ceremony of two friends, Abraham Hardee and Sophia Abraham.  Yes, it was an Abrahamic affair.   The wedding gave me a smal glimpse of the kingdom of heaven for which I am grateful.  No, it was not a Utopian weekend without any sin or drama - whenever you get lots of people together someone will find offense somewhere.  What was so beautiful about the occasion was the mosaic of God's people who were present in the wedding party. 

In one of the visions into heaven afforded by the book of Revelation we read the following:

9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen." Revelation 7:9-12

Now there was not a great innumerable multitude at the service this weekend; though the wedding party did have 14 attendants, a bride, a groom, a flower girl and me the pastor.   What was seen though was a beautiful tapestry of diversity in God's people.  Of the 18 in the wedding party I believe there were 1 Asian American, 3 Indian Americans, 6 Euro Americans and 8 African Americans.  In this party there was not only diversity, there was unity within the diversity.  To my knowledge each person is a follower of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Jewish carpenter from an ancient ghetto town called Nazareth. 

Often our contemporary world is marked by a diversity without unity and a mere tribalization of peoples by race, ethnicity, religion or economics.  Or it is marked by a unity without true diversity with communities segregated along worn out lines of division - Sunday mornings come to mind.

This weekend I stood as a white dude with some dear, dear friends.  One Indian, the other a black guy.  I could not help but weep during the ceremony and to be honest it had nothing to do with race.  I saw the gospel of Jesus working in people...and it was beautiful - as were the vows of covenant marriage made through communion with Jesus.  I wish the couple the best and continued grace in the gospel.  Now if I could only persuade the Hardees to come live in New Jersey with our family - and start churches together made from the same metal. 

Perhaps...

The folks at Stand to Reason have some interesting comments on the "gospel" being "Jesus as means to healing the planet" which is being put forth by some Intervarsity staff.  Remember, if we leave out the central focus of the "good news" we have presented a half truth.  Half truths fall short of communicating the rich reality that the gospel is about God saving sinners through Jesus AND send them on mission in the world.  That mission includes proclaiming the Jesus that died for sinners and forgives them AND sends the church into the world with good works for the common good as well. 

Pop Culture 

The gospel of Mark highlights that Jesus was seen as a different teacher for he taught as one with authority.  Our culture does not like to speak with any sort of conviction - one comedian has picked up on this and unpacks this cultural reality well. 

(HT - A-Team Blog) 

Gospel and Culture

Last Thursday we had a discussion entitled "Green and the Gospel - Christianity and the Environment. The wrap up from the evening is here.

I just go word that John Weber, Athletes in Action chaplain for the Dallas Cowboys just passed away on Thursday.  Though I only knew John from a few short conversations he was as respected as any I knew in the AIA world.

There is a story about him over at the Dallas Cowboys Web Site.  John was a guy that quietly impacted many lives serving others in the name of his Lord.

Here is the link - please pray for the Weber family as they grieve the loss of a kind servant.